the gun nut kills 38 year old thread got me wondering

how many here are against people having guns in the home for protection?

I'm probably what most here would consider a *gun nut* having MANY guns..but I never carry on the streets even though I have a CCW.I don't see how having millions of people packing on the streets makes anyone safer.I only got my CCW to make it simpler to carry while going to the range or going to my hunting spots.

HOWEVER..I have at close quarters(no children in the house)enough firepower that breaking into my house would be an extremely bad idea.

Just trying to get a pulse of how people feel here about using deadly force if needed in home defense...not protecting property...someone actually breaking into your home.

17. My wife shot and killed a home invader while I was at work several years ago.

Guy came in about 3:00 am, wife called 911, got the shotgun out of the safe, put our granddaughter in the closet and when the asshole came to the door, she warned him that she had called the police and that she was armed with a shotgun.
Long story short, asshole came through the door, she fired center mass and killed him.
Messed with her mind for a long time, she had to see a shrink for a while before she came to grips with it.

9. Some people are against deterrence.

Maybe they live in low-crime areas. Maybe they are unaware of crime victims and unconcerned about them. Or maybe, they are aware but simply don't care.

There may be other reasons as well.

But whatever the reason, they will not recognize that some firearms are lawfully owned to deter some criminals. Some even claim to believe that "Guns are only used for one purpose, to kill people."

It is common in the United States for millions of Democrats and Independents to safely own firearms in their homes. Some apparently reason, however, that unless homeowners are actively shooting home invaders every day, there is no legitimate reason for owning a firearm in the home for self-defense. For them, they do not and apparently never will consider deterrence as a legitimate reason.

21. They don't consider it legitimate for good reason

As for being unconcerned, I've been a victim of crime multiple times and witnessed violent crime, so there goes that claim for me. I don't consider it legitimate for the same reason that I don't think buying a lottery ticket is a good idea just because some people win. I know that having a loaded gun in my home makes my home less safe for myself and those who live in it. The only reason guns are marketed for self defense is to sell more guns and to exploit that fear. And society suffers for it.

31. Correct

49. Or maybe they just believe in statistics.

There is, simply put, no evidence at all that guns in homes deter criminals. It is just as likely that they would attract burglars, because guns are things that burglars want. There's no evidence for that either, so I'm not saying that's true, just pointing out that when we start drawing conclusions without evidence, we can get any result we want.

There is no evidence that a gun provides a safety benefit. In fact, the evidence shows that the opposite is true, that owning a gun increases risk.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that lax gun laws and high gun ownership rates increase risks to everyone.

You are free to believe whatever irrational propaganda that the NRA feeds you. Maybe you don't care about the 30,000 people killed by gun every year, although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are clueless rather than malicious.

Still, even though you choose willful ignorance, can't you at least understand that not everyone else is going to bury their head in the sand and ignore the evidence just to go along with your right-wing ideology?

11. Depends on where your home is.

Many factors to consider. Do I live next to the mafia? Am I living by the boarder of Mexico near the drug war? Am I living in a famine or war in the middle of Africa?

Unless you're in any real danger like that, there's really no point. Buying a gun increases your risk of being shot. But if you're at risk of being shot anyways, it wouldn't hurt much to increase your risk for at least the illusion of safety to calm down your nerves.

23. +1

16. Oh, please. It's an absurd question.

If it ever came down to "them or me" of COURSE 99.999% of us would agree the answer is "them."

But ask anyone who's ever killed anyone in the history of all time and they'll tell you it's Never. That. Simple.

Basing public policy on such a childish notion, the idea that it COULD be so black and white, is foolish in the extreme. And that's being generous with the assumption of best intentions on the part of anyone ASKING that simple a question.

"Do you support criminals?" would have more intellectual honesty, frankly. At least in the clumsiness there's a certain amount of agreeable transparency. This? Who knows.

34. So put you down for no one should have guns in their home? And about that 99%

that would be the number of people who guns who don't use them in crimes, so why base policy off the 1% that do?

If all you read and post all day long is crimes by a certain group, and refuse to see anyone else in that group as worthwhile, well...I call that both bias and ignorance.

It is like the repubs last election - climb in a bubble, only see what agrees with your belief, and ignore everything else. Possibly because of some personal reason (and I sure have known some folks in my life who have done that when it comes to african americans, they are now so prejudiced against that group there is no hope for them because they had a bad experience with them and only pay attention to such stories to fuel their personal bias).

25. My mother's husband (technically my stepfather)

He and my mother are rabid right wingers bordering on sovereign citizen territory. Anyway, he has a gun control problem. When my daughter was 8 yrs old, we had my mother and him attend our daughter's piano recital. Afterward, we went to eat at a fairly nice sit down restaurant. He takes his jacket off, dropping his Glock onto the tile floor from one of the jacket pockets. Stunned silence from everyone else in the place while he picked it back up and said ...ooops. At that moment I realized he had been packing the gun in the church where the recital was held! He hadn't taken his jacket off at the church.
Flash forward a few years. At my stepdaughter's wedding reception, he decides to get his gun out to show the people at his table! And just recently, maybe 2 months ago.... he LOSES his gun! It was in a gun case which he had placed on the side of his pickup truck's bed and drove down the road! Later he discovered he'd lost it! The gun was found along a road and turned into the police. Huge problem getting it back! It was turned over to the FBI and then he was all butt hurt about the guv-mint not respecting his property rights and returning it to him promptly. But what a friggin prime example of a person who should not be allowed near a firearm.

24. I hate it when gun nuts kill threads.

27. I think you should be able to own "home protection" even if I probably wouldn't do so myself.

I lived in a fairly dangerous neighborhood for a few years, before moving back home, and it never occurred to me to invest in a gun or other weapon. We can quibble over what types of firearm a person "should" be allowed to own, but I don't really have a problem with the basic idea.

30. Deadly force if and when I am confronted with severe bodily harm or death or overwhelming force.

Or, if my family or people under my roof are so threatened.

You want my TV, wallet, car - take it - just fucking go while I call the police.

Come in with a gun, come at me with a knife, or charge me in my home during a break in and I will defend myself. At home or on the street. I have enough health problems without letting some fuck nut(s) beat on me.

You can't expect older or debilitated people (like me) to just take a beating and hope for the best.

37. "You can't expect older or debilitated people (like me) to just take a beating and hope for the best

Yeah, I think some can expect that. They would tell you if you owned a gun you would probably shoot yourself and a bunch of other people or something. Then cite how many people do so (while not telling you how many DON'T because that would not fit into their story line to promote fear).

If someone breaks in, calmly ask them to wait, call the police, and just hang out having some coffee together until they arrive.

Of course you would probably get blamed because you didn't secure your home enough (why buy a gun, get a better lock!).

38. How many people have you shot and killed who had broken in trying to shoot and kill you?

backwoodsbob (5,115 posts)

this will be my last post on DU

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Kali (a host of the The DU Lounge forum).
I love all you guys who get how much I love my doggies.I've spent the last 15 years doing what I do and I am PROUD of my work with PAWS and the ASPCA for the last 15 years.I'm gonna miss you guys.Between Junior and Bengie and Katie and Charley and all the love I have seen for Big bear and Little Bear and Princess..and King..All The love I have shared with all of you ...and then...the budster..God I miss the Budster..GOD DAMN I miss my Budster.

It's not all about winning...it's about being true to yourself.....and I cant be true to myself if I mindlessly follow the party line.

45. To me, it's not a matter of "can" more than it being a matter of "should".

I'm *okay* with someone owning a reasonable firearm for home protection, provided that it is safely locked away and secured.

However.....

I don't understand why anyone would need a high capacity, rapid fire weapon like an AR-15 for home protection, though. They're not concealable (making the securing of them problematic) and I don't see the situation where anyone whose home is being invaded would need to fire off more than a few shots in rapid succession to either hit their target or scare off the intruders.

I also don't understand why anyone would need more than one gun for home protection. I don't get people who buy gun after gun after gun and claim it's all for the purpose of "home protection." Personally I think that type of thinking is an addiction, a sickness.

And even if one is reasonable in purchasing a gun for home protection and it's a reasonable gun that they're purchasing, there still begs the question: Does that person really need that gun? Or is possessing that gun creating a greater risk to the inhabitants of the household than the perceived risk to the household for which the gun is being purchased?

Do you live in a neighborhood notorious for violent crimes? Has there been a rash of home invasions in the immediate area? Did you witness a mafia murder?

If the answer to any of those questions is yes, I can understand the purchase. If not....then I just don't see why one *should* get the gun, just because they *can*.

I keep on thinking back to the man who several months ago came into the office right next to ours and shot both himself and his wife dead. He and his wife lived in a safe, upper middle class neighborhood with no major crime issues. Yet he purchased a gun for "protection." And after his wife told him she had been having an affair and wanted to leave him.....boom. Literally.

53. Home protection vs. other uses.

I am somewhat in agreement with several points in your post. I have several firearms, but I consider only one of them to be for "home protection." It's a relatively large handgun (a 1911, if anyone cares) that's a bit bulky for carry purposes under most circumstances. It's the one that's quickly available to me when I'm at home (the others, which I have for other purposes, are kept locked in the safe when not in use). When I go out, it goes in the safe. I live downtown in a condominium, so a rifle is a poor choice for home protection for me (rifle rounds tend to go through walls...). I'm a small, slightly-built person, which makes shotguns pretty unpleasant to shoot; I doubt I'd practice enough to responsibly rely on one for protection purposes.

My firearms represent what is obviously a greater-than-zero risk to me (the only person in the household), but I consider that risk to be so minimal that it can be treated as zero for any reasonable risk analysis purpose.

54. You seem to be stuck on deciding what other adults "need".

And deciding what is "reasonable". The way you have parsed it down, that I think in your heart, you really don't think anyone "needs" a gun at all.

Bluntly, if a person is an adult, is not a criminal, has passed a background check, has not been adjudicated mentally ill, and they want to own a guns or guns, then that is all the reason they should have to give to own one. Guns are a legal product. They shouldn't have to go begging and pleading to anyone to be "allowed" to own a gun. In other words, your or any other Gun Prohibitionists concept of "need", has nothing to do with it. It's none of your business.

55. It's a legitimate philosophical question. Sorry if it offends you, but it needs to be asked.

Just because something is legal for purchase doesn't mean you need to buy it.

And just because something is legal for purchase doesn't mean that your purchase of that item is putting you and others at greater risk.

There are some members of the public (non-military, non-law enforcement) who have a legitimate need to own a firearm for self protection.

However, many--and I might say a majority of said people--do not need a gun. In those situations, the risks of gun ownership outweigh the necessity.

After Adam Lanza shot 27 people dead with his AR-15 last December, thousands upon thousands of gun enthusiasts were tripping all over themselves to buy AR-15s. Even though many, if not most, of these people already had other firearms. Including other AR-15s.

What possible need was there for people to make a mad rush to buy this particular type of gun? Was there suddenly a dramatic spike in home invasions that people felt that they needed to stock up on these guns?

56. I'm going to let you in a big secret.

People often buy things, or hoard things, as a gesture of defiance toward people who speak just like you do. When people with your mindset start trying to dictate what other adult human being should or should not do, when you state you want to ban something, that makes people angry, and you get a reaction. And that reaction is

"Fuck you jack, you are NOT going to tell me what to do. You are not going to tell me what I need. That is for me to decide, not you. I am going to do what I want, and by buying X, especially if you don't like it, I'm saying double fuck you."

And a lot of those people who bought guns were in it strictly for the money. They were speculators. I saw some guns double, triple, and quadruple in price. And people were paying those prices. All because people like you screamed "ban them". You could call it hysteria, but then that is what happens anytime Prohibitionists of any stripe scream "ban something". The easiest way to get people to buy something is tell them you're going to ban it.

64. It's well within the government's police powers to regulate firearms.

2nd Amendment or not.

But in terms of needs and what is reasonable, the answer is basic common sense. Common sense can dictate between real situations where one would actually need a firearm and false situations wherein one desires a firearm for reasons that are other than rational.

74. At a certain point, universal common sense begins to kick in.

And universal common sense pretty much dictates that you almost certainly can survive in the world just fine without eight separate guns.

Wants and needs are two different things, my friend.

And if you believe you truly *need* eight separate guns, then you are just as delusional as those people you see on TV who do the extreme coupons and end up with 10 shelves of marshmallows in their basement.

77. Owning a gun for sporting purposes is perfectly rational.

One never needs to prove need to buy a legal product. No one needs an ipad, or a smart phone, or a stereo, or a gas grill, or an ATV, or a TV. We just want them. No one needs to collect little stuffed dolls, or glass figures, but some do.

It's part of the pursuit of happiness, an inalienable right of man.

And don't start with that sad "right to life argument". No one on this board is killing anybody. I won't hack anyone with my machete, or stab them with my cutting knives, or bludgeon them with my baseball bat, or slice them with my chainsaw. And I won't shoot anyone either.

You don't have a right to determine what's reasonable for me or anyone else.

82. Perhaps.

But owning 10 guns for sporting purposes, and another 10 for "home protection, and another 10 guns just because, isn't rational.

There's a certain pathology behind those people who--for a lack of a better terms--hoard firearms.

The difference between guns on the one hand and ipads/smart phones/stereos/gas grills/ATVs/TVs on the other hand is that the latter items aren't specifically designed as deadly weapons. The former is.

The problem with too many gun enthusiasts is that they fail to comprehend the gravity of the item to which they obsess. A gun should be an instrument of need, not an instrument of want. People shouldn't want to celebrate death.

85. That is your opinion and nothing more.

Unless you are a doctor who can influence the DSM-5, I think you should avoid the word pathology for your personal opinion.

As for deadly weapons, I have a friend who collects swords, spears, Halberds and other medieval type weapons (16th century Japanese as well). This is never a problem with people, despite the fact that all were designed solely to kill.

86. I honestly believe it is a sickness.

If you are someone who upon hearing the news that 27 people were murdered in cold blood--20 of those people being first grade elementary students--by someone welding a semi-automatic rifle, and your first reaction is to race to the gun store to snatch up another AR-15 because you're afraid that the purchase of those weapons may be restricted or prohibited in the future, there's something seriously wrong with you. Seriously. You would be a sick, sick person.

And that happened by the thousands following Sandy Hook.

It's a loss of perspective and a loss of gravity.

As for your friend, all I can say is that there's a difference between collecting ancient spears and swords to be kept behind glass versus collecting the latest and greatest in modern firearms because you can't wait to see how it feels to shoot them. Apples to oranges.

88. It's normal human nature. I can understand how it's revolting, but it isn't a sickness

Anytime a product or item is about to potentially get banned, there is ALWAYS a rush to acquire that item. Even people who don't have a need or would normally consume that product will do so just because it will not be an option to get in the future. Seen it happen with countless products.

And then there's the hoarding effect, like on ammo. People see potential restrictions in the supply and in the process buy so much that it runs out. My personal experience with that was gasoline after Irene and Sandy. Now I fared fine in that as I had a modest reserve and had made preparations such as topping the car tank off so that I could last 2 plus weeks before I needed more. Those who didn't ended up in massive lines and made headlines.

I also believe you fail to understand that not everyone sees guns as you do. Many people blame the shooter and not his tool of choice. In your case, you blame the availability of the tool, and are therefore unable to grasp how other people could buy that tool after Sandy Hook. One has to always remember that not everyone has the same perspective. For instance, I am completely pro-choice, no restrictions. Many people see me as a monster who doesn't care about unborn babies, and cares not for their "suffering". But in reality I don't factor that in at all for my value system. I am concerned only about the well being of the mother, whom is here right now, talking and interacting with me.

And since you are sure to ask, no, I haven't purchased a gun in over a decade. But I fully understand why others would. One other thing to keep in mind - when it comes to putting guns in the right/left spectrum, one has to remember that it isn't so simple that guns are right-wing. At least 35% of Democrats own them. That number is influenced by the fact that urban people, no matter what party, often don't. And Democrats make up the majority of urban populations. There are liberals such as myself who see defense of all of the Bill of Rights as true liberalism. For instance, not only do I own firearms, but I'm also a card carrying member of the ACLU.

65. I'll jump in and relate the reasons for my own gun purchases.

As I mentioned in a previous reply, I have a handgun that is generally for home/personal protection. That one is also usable for the "defensive pistol" class in various practical pistol competition types...but I seldom do much of that. Fun range gun, too. I have another, smaller handgun that's my CCW gun...and a third handgun in .22lr for purely recreational shooting on the cheap.

I also have a .22 rifle for similar purposes (it would be good for small game hunting, too...but I don't hunt). I have a "serious" long range rifle for long-range target competition, and a semi-automatic version of a "battle rifle" that's also just for fun (and for a "shit hits the fan" weapon, I suppose, but let's be real: what it really gets used for is recreational shooting and I don't expect that to change).

I suppose to many that would be considered an "arsenal," but they're really just equipment for a hobby I've loved since I was a girl. As mentioned elsewhere, they get locked away in the safe when not in use. Only one at a time (one of the centerfire handguns) gets used for protection.

76. I have no issue granting

there are more violent sports than competitive shooting. Certainly, football, rugby, and boxing.., as well as UFC. Hockey could be less violent if they focused more on the game than being aggressive.

I'm certain removing these sports from our society would be a hard sell but it's not a huge problem for me since I don't participate in them and have no kids. That doesn't mean I don't speak out against them when it is appropriate. I do.

48. I don't personally have a problem with people having a gun in their own home

What you do in your home is your business, though I worry you might be endangering any children in your home.

My problem is with people who carry guns around. It's like the Wild West these days. I don't like guns being carried around. Home fine - out and about so you can shoot anyone who makes you feel scared or threatened, not so much.

51. Well, I don't know

See, I don't have any guns but that is on me.
I have a bunch of swords, knives and other things however. All of them way beyond the reach of children.
There are no children in the house as well.

Either way, the niece and nephew are being taught how to treat weapons properly. Martial arts is a great system for teaching self defense, responsibility and learning to avoid conflict if the school focuses on that. There is currently no equivalent of such a thing with guns. Gun courses don't go that far unless you go in to military.

They are not allowed to touch such things without adult supervision. Besides, I am skilled enough to disarm them even years from now. In regards to guns, I wouldn't be that confident.

My issue is that many who have guns and those around them do not have the necessary respect for the arms that they carry. There is no actual training for some and many times it is at a bare minimum. It is why at certain times, I think mandatory insurance is necessary since I am not convinced people think about how dangerous these things are, particularly "accidental discharge". Just so, that if they were to shoot their toe off or something else, they have something to pay medical fees and collateral damage.

I am also convinced that these jerk-wads that go around brandishing their guns in public do a disservice to those who own treat their arms responsibly. Problem is, there are too many jerk-wads and stupid people out there. Sure, there are those who help out incidentally, but in general, chances are, if one has a gun carried, it offers a false sense of security that when whipped out, more likely than not they would just add to collateral damage.

If a person has a gun, and they brandish it in front of me, I am pretty much screwed. I mean, running is not the best option since more often than not, all it would mean is getting shot in the back.

Now with the Stand your ground laws and self defense laws, if I die while protecting myself from a guy with a gun, chances are they would say I am this disreputable guy who cold cocked someone and they had to shoot me for self defense.

Back then, what I would do, would be to make an assessment of if I am going to die any way or not, given what I would lose. If it is only my wallet, fine, that's no problem, if it is getting someone I am with hurt or I am going to get killed any way, then I'd do something physical. My aim would be to incapacitate them by any means necessary. So nowadays, the current laws makes the victims and defenders even more powerless against bullies who have guns(legally or illegally).

Any way, I digress. If it is in regards to guns at home. I could care less, as long as it is stored properly. If kids happen to get to them, I would consider the owner liable for not storing it correctly. If they shoot and it goes through the wall and kills a neighbor, particularly if they are owning assault weapons and so forth, then they should also be liable, even if they are supposedly protecting themselves from an intruder. So in essence, this only strengthens my belief that guns should be subject to mandatory insurance and training.

52. I keep a pipe wrench next to the bed

I always think that a gun would be taken away from me and used to shoot me. I'm also glad that burglars didn't find any when they hit my place. All they got were refurbished electronics bought on sale cheap and easy to replace, also cheap.

However, an old lady swinging a pipe wrench is just off the wall enough to encourage them to leave. It worked in Boston, anyway, and the guy had a gun.

78. Christians with guns for protection are hypocrites

If Christians had any faith they wouldn't dare own a gun for protection.

Number 1: If a Christian had guns they wouldn't have any faith that their Jesus would save them. And they also wouldn't turn their other cheek. They'd just fire at will killing anyone they deemed threatening.

Number 2: Jesus didn't own a weapon and neither did any of his followers.

Number 3: A real Christian with faith would even want to be killed so they could go back to be with baby Jesus again. Obviously they don't believe they will so they get guns instead.

Number 4: I bet a lot of Christian gun owners spend more time fondling and worshipping guns than they do going to church or praying.

NOTE: RW 'Christians' aren't Christians at all. They can't be Christians because they hate all of Jesus' teachings. They love violence, wars, executions, torture and of course GUNS!

79. Back to the Bible with you

#1-Matthew 4:

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

#2- John 18:

10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

11 Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

I think you have an issue with Christians; not all of them are on the right, probably some are here on DU.